Conclusions The Business of the Respondent The complaint alleges, the Respondent admits and I find that the Respondent is now, and has been at all times material herein, a public employer within the meaning of Section 447.203(2), of the Act. The Labor Organization Involved The complaint alleges, the Respondent admits and I find that the Charging Party is now, and has been at all times material herein, an employee organization within the meaning of Section 447.203(10), of the Act. The Alleged Unfair Labor Practices A. Introduction Duke Schultz, an area Director of the Charging Party became directly involved in the organizational activities of the Respondent during January, 1976. During an organizational meeting held on January 27, 1976, Ms. Josephine Bonetti, the alleged discriminatee involved herein, became affiliated with AFSCME, signed a card and became an active member of the organizational committee. The following day, Schultz requested volunteer recognition from Respondent through its Mayor, Harry E. Case. Mayor Case advised that he was then serving as both Mayor and City Manager and that when a new City Administrator came on board, he would respond to the Charging Party's request for voluntary recognition. During that day, while at City Hall, Schultz spoke to Ms. Bonetti in the presence of other section employees. A few days later, on February 2, 1976, Dale E. Reith, came to the City of Venice as its Administrator. One of Reith's priorities centered around the reduction of employees within the city and sometime prior to March 19, 1976, Mr. Reith and Mr. Thomas Holmes, the Comptroller, had a discussion concerning the elimination of a position within Mr. Holmes' department. It was then determined that one of the two customer service clerk positions could be eliminated and Mr. Reith informed Mr. Holmes to take the appropriate action. Based on the testimony, it appears that Mr. Holmes was left with the sole discretion as to which of the two clerk positions would be eliminated. The evidence reveals that Respondent has an informal policy of effecting layoffs based on seniority. In view of Ms. Bonetti's status as the least senior of the two customer service clerks, she was eliminated. Respondent alleges further that Ms. Bonetti also lacked typing skills which placed her in the unfortunate position of being unable to transfer into other positions in which typing was required despite previous suggestions by her supervisor to go to typing school and based thereon, she was terminated. It is this discharge of Ms. Bonetti, and Respondent's refusal to reinstate her to her former or substantially equivalent position, which forms the basis for the General Counsel's issuance of the complaint filed herein. Ms. Bonetti participated in the organizational activities of the Charging Party by informing fellow employees of meetings, however, her testimony reveals that she did not solicit employees to execute signature cards on behalf of AFSCME or to attend organizational meetings in the presence of Respondent's agents or officers. While it appears that Ms. Bonetti informed her supervisor, Norma Bradford, of her membership in AFSCME, there was no evidence that either Mr. Reith or Mr. Holmes was advised of this activity on behalf of Ms. Bonetti or that Mrs. Bradford advised them indirectly. Another fellow employee, Dorothy Fortuna, was also aware of Ms. Bonetti's activities on behalf of AFSCME but she too specifically denied that she had ever mentioned this fact to any management official and further that she had never mentioned such activities on Ms. Bonetti's part to either Mr. Reith or Mr. Holmes. There was no other evidence of any other agent of Respondent (who played a part in the discharge decision) having been aware of Ms. Josephine Bonetti's activities on behalf of the Charging Party prior to her discharge which is an indispensable element of proof by PERC in establishing the alleged discriminatory discharge (layoff) and unlawful motivation by Respondent. It was further noted that while the Respondent issued a policy statement during March of 1976, voicing its opposition to union organizations within the City, there was no direct or indirect proof that it in any manner violated the Act in espousing its position to its employees. While there is some basis for suspicion, in view of Ms. Bonetti's approximately three years service with the Respondent with apparently little, if any, difficulty, and one may debate whether Respondent might have acted more humanely in the circumstances by attempting to secure other employment for Ms. Bonetti, there was no showing that other available positions had become vacant in which she (Ms. Bonetti) could have filled and based thereon I conclude from the evidence as a whole that Ms. Josephine Bonetti was not denied reinstatement because of her union activities or that her layoff was prompted based on any alleged unlawful motivation. Accordingly, I shall recommend that the complaint filed herein be dismissed. Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and the entire record in this case, I make the following:
Conclusions Having reviewed the Administrative Complaint, and all other matters of record, the Agency for Health Care Administration finds and concludes as follows: 1. The Agency has jurisdiction over the above-named Respondent pursuant to Chapter 408, Part II, Florida Statutes, and the applicable authorizing statutes and administrative code provisions. 2. The Agency issued the attached Administrative Complaint and Election of Rights form to the Respondent. (Ex. 1) The Election of Rights form advised of the right to an administrative hearing. 3. The parties have since entered into the attached Settlement Agreement. (Ex. 2) Based upon the foregoing, it is ORDERED: 1. The Settlement Agreement is adopted and incorporated by reference into this Final Order. The parties shall comply with the terms of the Settlement Agreement. 2. The Respondent shall pay the Agency $2,000.00 in administrative fines. If full payment has been made, the cancelled check acts as receipt of payment and no further payment is required. If full payment has not been made, payment is due within 30 days of the Final Order. Overdue amounts are subject to statutory interest and may be referred to collections. A check made payable to the “Agency for Health Care Administration” and containing the AHCA ten-digit case number should be sent to: Office of Finance and Accounting Revenue Management Unit Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, MS 14 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Filed November 29, 2011 10:11 AM Division of Administrative Hearings 3. Conditional licensure status is imposed on the Respondent beginning on May 24, 2011 and ending on June 24, 2011. ORDERED at Tallahassee, Florida, on this 2S day oP seeder 2011. va Agency for Health Administration
Other Judicial Opinions A party who is adversely affected by this Final Order is entitled to judicial review, which shall be instituted by filing one copy of a notice of appeal with the Agency Clerk of AHCA, and a second copy, along with filing fee as prescribed by law, with the District Court of Appeal in the appellate district where the Agency maintains its headquarters or where a party resides. Review of proceedings shall be conducted in accordance with the Florida appellate rules. The Notice of Appeal must be filed within 30 days of rendition of the order to be reviewed. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I CERTIFY that a true and correct c of this Final Order was se on the below-named persons by the method designated on this 28 Ot of Lak » 2011. Richard Shoop, Agency Cre Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Bldg. #3, Mail Stop #3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Telephone: (850) 412-3630 Jan Mills Finance & Accounting Facilities Intake Unit Revenue Management Unit (Electronic Mail) (Electronic Mail) Thomas J. Walsh II Brian M. Bursa, Esq. Office of the General Counsel Counsel for Respondent Agency for Health Care Administration 3812 Coconut Palm Drive (Electronic Mail) Suite 200 Tampa, Florida 33619 (U.S. Mail) J. D. Parrish Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings (Electronic Mail)
Findings Of Fact Floralino Properties, Inc. is a small utility providing water and sewer service in Pasco County. During the period May 30, 1978 until March 12, 1979, it purchased a substantial portion of its water from the Pasco Water Authority, Inc. (PWA) for resale to its customers. In order to recoup the costs of those purchases, the Public Service Commission authorized the utility to assess a surcharge upon each customer's bill. (See Order No. 7494). However, because the surcharge exceeded the actual charges for water purchased, the utility was required to escrow all excess revenues. Respondent failed to do so thereby precipitating the issuance of Order No. 9320. A subsequent Commission audit reflected the excess revenues to be $2,228.05. Prior to the hearing, but after the issuance of Order No. 9320, the respondent escrowed the funds in a Pinellas County bank. The utility now agrees to make an appropriate refund with interest within 30 days to all customers who received service during the period in question.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Hearing Officer recommends that respondent be found guilty of violating Order No. 7494, dated November 2, 1976; that a fine of $250 be imposed upon respondent; that respondent make an appropriate refund of $2,228.05 with 6 percent interest to those customers entitled to such refund within 30 days; and that a final report setting forth the disposition of such monies be submitted to the Public Service Commission within 90 days. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of August, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: M. Robert Christ, Esquire 101 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 33542 Floralino Properties, Inc. 2320 East Bay Drive Clearwater, Florida 33516 Steve Tribble Commission Clerk 101 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Herman B. Blumenthal, III, Esquire 10401 Seminole Boulevard (Alt. 19) Seminole, Florida 33542
Conclusions Having reviewed the Administrative Complaint, and all other matters of record, the Agency for Health Care Administration finds and concludes as follows: 1. The Agency has jurisdiction over the above-named Respondent pursuant to Chapter 408, Part II, Florida Statutes, and the applicable authorizing statutes and administrative code provisions. 2. The Agency issued the attached Administrative Complaint and Election of Rights form to the Respondent. (Ex. 1) Respondent requested a formal administrative hearing by a Petition, however, Respondent failed to file any response to the Administrative Law Judge’s Order to Show Cause, which resulted in the Judge’s Order Relinquishing Jurisdiction and Closing File. (Ex. 2) This Order found that Respondent’s failure to file any response to the Court’s Order to Show Cause resulted in a finding that Respondent’s request for formal administrative hearing was deemed withdrawn and there were no remaining material disputed facts to resolve. Based upon the foregoing, it is ORDERED: 1. The findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth in the Administrative Complaint are adopted and incorporated by reference into this Final Order. 2. The Respondent shall pay the Agency $1,000. If full payment has been made, the cancelled check acts as receipt of payment and no further payment is required. If full payment has not been made, payment is due within 30 days of the Final Order. Overdue amounts are subject to statutory interest and may be referred to collections. A check made payable to the “Agency for Health Care Administration” and containing the AHCA ten-digit case number should be sent to: Office of Finance and Accounting Revenue Management Unit Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 14 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 1 Filed December 17, 2013 10:37 AM Division of Administrative Hearings ORDERED at Tallahassee, Florida, on this_'3 day of Deeerber 2013. poms Elizayeth Dudgk,\Secretary Ageficy for Heafth Care Administration
Other Judicial Opinions A party who is adversely affected by this Final Order is entitled to judicial review, which shall be instituted by filing one copy of a notice of appeal with the Agency Clerk of AHCA, and a second copy, along with filing fee as prescribed by law, with the District Court of Appeal in the appellate district where the Agency maintains its headquarters or where a party resides. Review of proceedings shall be conducted in accordance with the Florida appellate rules. The Notice of Appeal must be filed within 30 days of rendition of the order to be reviewed. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I CERTIFY that a true and correct_c of this Final Qrder was served on the below-named persons by the method designated on this 3 otay of , 2013. CY i Richard Shoop, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Telephone: (850) 412-3630 Jan Mills Finance & Accounting Facilities Intake Unit Revenue Management Unit (Electronic Mail) (Electronic Mail) 4 Deborah E. Leoci, Senior Attorney Tamas Kovacs, Administrator Office of the General Counsel SWOF, LLC, d/b/a Gulf Winds Agency for Health Care Administration 2745 East Venice Avenue (Electronic Mail) Venice, Florida 34292 (U.S. Mail) Elizabeth W. McArthur, Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (Electronic Mail)
The Issue Whether Respondent, Volusia County School Board, Florida (Respondent, Volusia County Schools, or the School Board), violated the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, sections 760.01 through 760.11, Florida Statutes,1/ by discriminating against Petitioner, Johnnie Lee Canady (Petitioner), based upon Petitioner’s race or disability.
Findings Of Fact The School Board is the duly authorized entity responsible for providing public education in Volusia County, Florida. At all material times, Petitioner was employed by the School Board as a seventh-grade social studies teacher at River Springs Middle School (River Springs). The principal of River Springs was Stacy Gotlib. Petitioner served as the River Springs Professional Learning Community Coordinator (PLCC) during the 2012- 2013 school year. As a PLCC, Petitioner was responsible for organizing staff meetings to collaboratively discuss issues arising in the classrooms. Petitioner testified that he “signed up” for the PLCC supplemental duty position, which was awarded to him by Ms. Gotlib. During the 2013-2014 school year, Don Sarro, who, at the time, was the department chair for River Springs’ social studies department, publicly announced that that he was running for the School Board. Under the circumstances, most employees at River Springs were probably aware that Mr. Sarro would be resigning as department chair, creating a vacancy in the position the following school year. Petitioner claims River Springs discriminated against him on the basis of his race because he “was not told of the vacancy” and “a less qualified white female” was selected for the position. Petitioner did not prove these allegations. At the conclusion of the 2013-2014 school year, Petitioner completed a teaching preference form. Petitioner did not express an interest in serving as the department chair for the social studies department or any other supplemental duty positions. At the conclusion of the 2013-2014 school year, River Springs teacher, Kelly Moore, notified River Springs that she was interested in serving as the department chair for the social studies department. River Springs did not advertise the supplemental duty position, and no teachers made formal applications for the position. Chester Boles, assistant principal intern at River Springs, selected Ms. Moore for the supplemental duty position. She was the only candidate who expressed any interest in the position. She was looking for a leadership position because she was working toward a degree to become an administrator. Petitioner did not offer evidence that he was treated any differently than any other teacher at River Springs regarding the social studies department chair position. In fact, although he alleges that he was discriminated against because he was not told of the vacancy, he admits that he does not know of anyone who was told. He offered no evidence to show how Ms. Moore was informed. In fact, there was no advertisement. And, Petitioner did not show that race was a factor in the hiring decision. Prior to the start of the 2014-2015 school year, Petitioner applied to the School Board for seven teaching positions at four schools outside of River Springs. He interviewed with the principals of those schools for each of those positions, but was not selected. Petitioner believes that he was discriminated against on the basis of his race because the selected applicants “were less qualified” than Petitioner. Petitioner, however, did not prove his claim. In fact, he testified that he does not have specific knowledge of the individuals who were hired for each position, the race of the selected applicants, or the reasons the applicants were chosen for the positions. Petitioner testified, in relevant part, as follows: Q: Do you know what position Brian McClary was hired into? A: No. Q: Do you know his race? A: No. Q: Do you know why he was hired? A: No. Q: Okay. How about Jordan Tager, do you know what position he was hired into? A: No. Q: Do you know who hired him? A: No. Q: Do you know his race? A: No. Q: How about Joseph Martin, do you know what job he was entered – hired into? A: No. Q: Do you know who hired him? A: No. Q: Do you know why he was hired? A: No. Q: Do you know his race? A: No. Q: Amy Tolley, do you know what job she was hired into? A: No. Q: Do you know who hired her? A: No. Q: Do you know why she was hired? A: No. Q: Do you know her race? A: No. Q: How about Elizabeth Stople, do you know what job she was hired into? A: No. Q: Do you know who hired her? A: No. Q: Do you know why she was hired? A: No. Q: Do you know her race? A: No. [...] Q: Do you know Chelsea Ambrose? A: No. Q: Do you know her race? A: No. Q: Do you know what position she was hired into? A: No. Q: Do you know why she was hired? A: No. Q: How about Amanda Muessing, do you know what job she was hired into? A: No. Q: Do you know who hired her? A: No. Q: Do you know why she was hired? A: No. Q: Do you know her race? A: No. Petitioner offered no evidence of the race of the individuals selected for the seven positions. Although he offered the résumés of five of the applicants allegedly hired for five of the positions, he failed to substantiate his claims that he was discriminated against on the basis of his race when he was not selected for one of the seven teaching positions. Petitioner testified that, during the 2013-2014 school year, several teachers were having problems “because the [seventh grade] wing was out of control.” He testified that students were being very “disruptive” and there was a general lack of discipline. According to Petitioner, the situation created a “very difficult and stressful” atmosphere for the teachers. On June 8, 2014, Petitioner emailed the School Board's assistant superintendent, Peromnia Grant. His email stated that the stress from the previous school year may “have aggravated some of [his] Persian Gulf War Syndrome [i]ssues.” The email stated, in relevant part: I have participated in the transfer fair and applied for high schools. If I must return to River Springs or middle school, I might need to take a leave of absence until January, 2015 so the Veterans Administration can conduct a full evaluation of my medical concerns and discuss my retraining for an alternative job. Petitioner sought treatment over the summer with the Veteran Administration Outpatient Clinic (VA). The VA worked “to help stabilize” his condition. He “was in distress” after “a bad [school] year.” He was placed on prescription medication for approximately three months. At the beginning of the 2014-2015 school year, Petitioner had a conversation with Eric Ellis, an eighth-grade teacher at River Springs. Petitioner informed Mr. Ellis that he was admitted to the VA hospital over the summer. Petitioner told Mr. Ellis that the VA had asked him if he had any suicidal thoughts and that he advised the VA that he did not. Petitioner further told Mr. Ellis that when the VA asked him if he had any thoughts of harming or killing anyone else, he responded, “Amanda Wiles.”3/ Amanda Wiles was the assistant principal at River Springs. On or about August 19, 2014, Petitioner attended a pre- planning meeting at River Springs. During the meeting, Petitioner got into a loud verbal exchange with Mr. Sarro. River Springs assistant principal intern, Chester Boles, attended the meeting. Petitioner was upset because he believed Mr. Sarro was using the meeting as a platform to give “a political speech” and to talk about “how wonderful everything” was at the school. Petitioner believed Mr. Sarro was breaking school policy and that he “had to stop him.” Petitioner proceeded to engage in a heated discussion with Mr. Sarro. At some point during the conversation, Petitioner stated something to the effect that, "I better shut my mouth, I'm getting racist,” and shoved a crumpled up piece of paper into his mouth. After the meeting, Mr. Boles informed Ms. Gotlib of the situation. Shortly after the meeting, Mr. Sarro approached Mr. Ellis about Petitioner. Mr. Ellis explained to Mr. Sarro that he too was concerned about Petitioner. Mr. Sarro asked Mr. Ellis if he would like to go with him to the principal’s office to share their concerns about Petitioner with Ms. Gotlib. Mr. Ellis agreed and they both went to the principal's office and spoke to Ms. Gotlib. After speaking with Mr. Sarro and Mr. Ellis, Ms. Gotlib contacted the School Board's director of Professional Standards, Sandy Hovis. Ms. Gotlib informed Mr. Hovis about Petitioner’s reportedly threatening comments and unusual behavior. Mr. Hovis then met with Mr. Ellis and Mr. Sarro to discuss their concerns. Mr. Ellis told Mr. Hovis that Petitioner made a comment to the VA that he would like to hurt or kill the assistant principal at River Springs. On August 19, 2014, Mr. Hovis met with Petitioner and informed Petitioner of the information that was reported to him by administration and his fellow teachers. He advised Petitioner that Petitioner was being administratively assigned to home with pay pending a safety evaluation to be conducted under the School Board’s Employee Assistance Program (EAP). Safety evaluations are requested by the School Board when there are concerns that an employee may be an “imminent risk of danger to [himself] or to others.” Following the meeting, Petitioner sent Mr. Hovis an email, entitled “[a]ccusations from staff at River Springs Middle.” In his email, Petitioner stated that the “first accusation about [him] biting down on folder paper is correct.” Petitioner claimed that it was a heated discussion, which led him to tell Mr. Sarro “a thing or two, or three about himself (about 3 minutes’ worth).” When referring an employee to EAP, the School Board works with Horizon Health, a third-party administrator that contracts with the School Board. Mike Nash with Horizon Health was the liaison between the School Board and independent health care providers. Mr. Nash, who was located in Colorado, was responsible for ensuring that Petitioner met with appropriate healthcare providers to conduct evaluations. In accordance with arrangements made by Mr. Nash, Petitioner met with a licensed mental health counselor, Brianard Hines, PhD, in August and September 2014, for a safety evaluation. Sandy Hovis did not have any conversations with Dr. Hines. Although no contemporaneous written report from Dr. Hines was submitted into evidence, Petitioner introduced a "To whom it may concern" letter from Dr. Hines, dated May 15, 2016, stating: Dr. Johnny Canady was referred to me through the Volusia County Schools Employee Assistance Program as a mandatory referral for three sessions to evaluate current risk to self and others. Mr. Canady had allegedly made statements which other employees believed contained some degree of implicit threat to staff at his school, was suspended from his teaching duties and directed to participate in the assessment sessions with me. Dr. Canady attended sessions at my office in Port Orange Florida on August 24, September 4 and September 11, 2014. On those occasions he participated actively and denied any current or past homicidal or suicidal ideation. He also adamantly denied making any statements which were intended to be or could of been considered to be threatening in any way. He reported some symptoms of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder, which he attributed to his earlier service in the military. After completing his three sessions, the Volusia County School Board apparently decided that he should participate in a fitness for duty evaluation before returning to his job. Fitness for duty evaluations are not performed by Employee Assistance Programs, and it is my understanding that Mr. Canady obtained his evaluation from another provider. Please let me know if I can provide any further information, although complete records are available through the Employee Assistance Program at any time, which were provided through Horizon Health. On or about September 18, 2014, Mr. Nash informed Mr. Hovis that Horizon Health recommended that Petitioner submit to a fitness-for-duty evaluation. Mr. Hovis was not provided with written documentation of Horizon Health's recommendation. Later that day, Mr. Hovis met with Petitioner and directed him to undergo a fitness-for-duty evaluation. Unlike a safety evaluation, a fitness-for-duty evaluation determines whether the employee is capable and able to perform the duties and responsibilities of his or her position. As indicated in the letter from Dr. Hines, Dr. Hines did not perform Petitioner’s fitness-for-duty evaluation. Rather, it was performed by licensed psychologist Dr. William Friedenberg. Petitioner was on placed on paid administrative leave pending the outcome of the evaluation. Dr. Friedenberg’s fitness-for-duty evaluation of Petitioner determined that Petitioner suffered from “Adjustment Disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood.” Specifically, Dr. Friedenberg determined: Although it does not appear that Dr. Canady poses a risk of danger to himself or others, he realizes that it is not advisable for him to return to a classroom teaching setting at this time due to the stress associated with this job and his previous reaction to such stressors. It is thus the opinion of this examiner that, within a reasonable degree of psychological certainty, Dr. Canady is not currently fit for return to duty in his previous capacity as a classroom teacher. He will likely, however, be able to return successfully to employment with the Volusia County School system in an administrative capacity. Upon receiving Petitioner's fitness-for-duty- evaluation, the School Board requested further clarification from Dr. Friedenberg. Dr. Friedenberg explained that "administrative capacity" was a non-student contact position. Dr. Friedenberg was unable to provide a timeline as to when Petitioner would be able to return to his previous position as a classroom teacher. Based on Dr. Friedenberg’s assessment, the School Board reviewed its vacancies and determined that there were no vacant positions for which Petitioner was qualified because the positions all involved student interaction. On October 21, 2014, Mr. Hovis met with Petitioner and reviewed Dr. Friedenberg’s evaluation with Petitioner. Because there were no vacant positions available, the School Board, through Mr. Hovis, offered Petitioner the option of resigning, being terminated, or taking a leave of absence in lieu of termination. Petitioner elected to take a leave of absence. During his leave of absence, on May 11, 2015, Petitioner voluntarily resigned from his position. In his Complaint of Discrimination filed with FCHR on April 8, 2015, Petitioner claims that he was discriminated on the basis of his alleged disability. Particularly, Petitioner claims that he was “denied [a] reasonable accommodation” when he was not placed in another position within the school district. Petitioner did not offer any evidence that there were any vacant positions available at the time that he was granted a leave of absence. Since that time, Petitioner has not applied for a single administrative position. At the final hearing, during cross examination, Petitioner testified: Q: [After you received] Dr. Friedenberg’s report, [d]id you apply for any administrative position within the School Board? A: No, because Mr. Hovis said we have nothing for you. [...] Q: Did you ever go on to the Volusia County School Board web site to look to see whether there was any position that you were interested in? A: No. [Mr. Hovis] said they had nothing for me, so there was no reason for me to – in my mind to waste my time doing that. He said they have nothing for me. Q: And to this day you haven’t applied for any other position within the school district, correct. A: No, because they say I’m not fit for duty. I can’t be around – I can’t be in the classroom setting . . . The evidence submitted by Petitioner was insufficient to establish that he was denied a reasonable accommodation or that the School Board otherwise discriminated against him because of his disability.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing Petitioner's Complaint of Discrimination and Petition for Relief consistent with the terms of this Recommended Order. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of September, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JAMES H. PETERSON, III Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of September, 2016.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Amended Administrative Complaint and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent was certified by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission on July 24, 1984, and issued certificate number 19-84-002- 03. At all times pertinent hereto, Respondent was a certified law enforcement officer. The Respondent was employed as a police officer by the City of Miami Police Department during 1985. On May 31, 1985, a drug rip-off occurred in Miami, Florida, at Nuta's Boat Yard. Approximately 187 kilos of cocaine were taken. On July 12, 1985, a second drug rip-off occurred in Miami at the Tamiami Marina. Between 400-450 kilos of cocaine were taken. On July 28, 1985, a third drug rip-off occurred in Miami at Jones Boat yard. Approximately 450 kilos of cocaine were taken. Several City of Miami police officers were involved in these three drug rip-offs and the subsequent resale of the stolen cocaine. The subsequent prosecution of these cases became known as the "Miami River Cops Cases". Respondent Collazo did not participate in any of these three drug rip-offs and he has not been prosecuted criminally. Three of the witnesses in this matter, Rudolfo Arias, Carlos Pedrera, and Regino Capiro were involved in the Miami River Cops Cases and were, at the time of the formal hearing, incarcerated in the federal prison system. Mr. Arias Mr. Capiro, and Mr. Pedrera had each entered into a plea agreement with the federal prosecutors. Each of these witnesses had, in exchange for substantial benefits, agreed to divulge information as to wrongdoing by other police officers and to testify against those implicated officers if necessary. The benefits received by Mr. Arias included his being placed in the Federal Witness Protection Program. Despite his plea agreement, Mr. Pedrera refused to testify in this proceeding and was withdrawn as a witness before he gave any substantive testimony. Although neither Mr. Arias nor Mr. Capiro received any direct benefit for his testimony in this proceeding, the testimony presented by both of these witnesses was a product of his respective plea agreement. Mr. Arias was an officer with the City of Miami Police Department in 1985 and knew Respondent as a fellow officer. Armando Garcia, who was also an officer with the City of Miami Police Department in 1985, was considered by Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Agent Judd to be the most culpable of those police officers involved in the Miami River Cops Case. Mr. Arias was considered to be the second-most culpable. Mr. Arias had been contacted by Mr. Garcia and invited to come to his home on the evening of July 29, 1985, the day after the drug rip-off at the Jones Boat Yard. When Mr. Arias arrived at Mr. Garcia's residence at approximately 6:00 p.m., a drug dealer named Jose Benitez was present with members of the Garcia family. Armando Garcia arrived at approximately 6:30 p.m. and was accompanied by Oswaldo Cuello. Mr. Cuello was, at that time, a City of Miami police officer. Mr. Garcia and Mr. Cuello informed Mr. Arias that they had participated in the drug rip-off at the Jones Boat Yard and recruited him to help dispose of the stolen cocaine. Mr. Arias was shown approximately 100 kilos of cocaine that had been packaged in large, clear plastic bags and stored in the Garcia house inside a bedroom closet. Mr. Arias agreed to help sell the stolen cocaine. Respondent, Mr. Cuello, and Mr. Garcia were, in addition to being fellow officers, friends who socialized together. Mr. Arias, Mr. Garcia, Mr. Cuello, and Mr. Benitez entered into a conversation during which either Mr. Garcia, Mr. Cuello, or Mr. Benitez made certain statements about the Respondent. 1/ Mr. Arias left the Garcia house between 8:30 p.m. and 10:00 p.m. on July 29, 1985, with ten kilos of cocaine in a plastic garbage bag. During that time, different people entered and exited the Garcia house. Those entering brought money into the house in different ways, such as in a paper bag or a gym bag, while those leaving the house left carrying various objects such as paper bags and briefcases. Mr. Arias left the yard area through the front gate, walked down the street to his car, and placed the cocaine he had been given to sell in his car. As he was doing this, Respondent drove up toward the front gate, parked approximately two car lengths in front of Mr. Arias's car, and blew his horn. Mr. Arias then saw Respondent engage in a conversation with Mr. Cuello and Mr. Benitez, but he did not hear the conversation. Mr. Arias was joined in conversation with Mr. Garcia and was not paying close attention to Respondent, Mr. Cuello, and Mr. Benitez. Mr. Arias witnessed either Mr. Cuello or Mr. Benitez place a bag in the trunk of Respondent's vehicle which he described as a light brown bag which could have been a grocery bag or a shopping bag. Mr. Arias did not see Respondent holding this bag and he did not know the contents of that bag. Mr. Arias did not see Respondent either enter or exit Mr. Garcia's house and he did not know whose bag it was or from where it came. 2/ Mr. Arias was later told by Mr. Garcia that the Respondent had taken four kilos on the night of July 29, 1985, but that he had only sold one and had returned three of the kilos. 3/ Mr. Arias was also told by Respondent's partner, Officer Squeeky Morales, that Respondent had made certain statements to him regarding his sale of stolen cocaine. 4/ During 1985, Regino Capiro was a City of Miami police officer who became involved in the Miami River Cops case. During 1985, after the Jones Boat Yard rip-off, Mr. Capiro met with Armando Garcia (both Mr. Capiro and Mr. Garcia were still City of Miami police officers at this point in time) in response to a burglary call. The Respondent also appeared at the scene, even though he was off duty. The Respondent invited Mr. Garcia to come by Respondent's house, which was a half of a block from the burglary scene, after they were through with the burglary call. After completing their work at the burglary call, Mr. Garcia and Mr. Capiro drove to Respondent's house. While they were at Respondent's house, Mr. Capiro overheard Mr. Garcia and the Respondent discussing the fact that Respondent had sold for Mr. Garcia some of the cocaine that had been stolen in one of the Miami River drug rip-offs. Mr. Garcia told Mr. Capiro that the Respondent had sold cocaine for him from one of the drug rip-offs 5/ and that Respondent was available to sell cocaine for Mr. Capiro if Mr. Capiro wanted him to do so. These statements were made by Mr. Garcia to Mr. Capiro in the presence of Respondent and without denial from Respondent. Upon hearing these statements, Respondent did not verbally respond, but he did nod his head in agreement. 6/
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that a Final Order be entered which finds that Respondent, Vincent E. Collazo, possessed and sold an unknown quantity of cocaine on or about July 1985, and which revokes his certification as a law enforcement officer in the State of Florida. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 3rd day of July, 1991. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of July, 1991.
Conclusions Having reviewed the Administrative Complaint, and all other matters of record, the Agency for Health Care Administration finds and concludes as follows: 1. The Agency has jurisdiction over the above-named Respondent pursuant to Chapter 408, Part II, Florida Statutes, and the applicable authorizing statutes and administrative code provisions. 2. The Agency issued the attached Administrative Complaint and Election of Rights form to the Respondent (Ex. 1). The Election of Rights form advised of the right to an administrative hearing. 3. The parties have since entered into the attached Settlement Agreement (Ex. 2). Based upon the foregoing, it is ORDERED: 1. The Settlement Agreement is adopted and incorporated by reference into this Final Order. The parties shall comply with the terms of the Settlement Agreement. 2. The Respondent shall pay the Agency $3,000.00. If full payment has been made, the cancelled check acts as receipt of payment and no further payment is required. If full payment has not been made, payment is due within 30 days of the Final Order. No interest shall be assessed if paid within this period of time. Overdue amounts are subject to statutory interest and may be referred to collections. A check made payable to the “Agency for Health Care Administration” and containing the AHCA ten- digit case number should be sent to: Office of Finance and Accounting Revenue Management Unit Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 14 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Filed April 29, 2014 3:06 PM Division of Administrative Hearings ORDERED at Tallahassee, Florida, on thisLA_ day of Coperee 2014. Elizabeth Dudek, Secretary Agency for Nealth Care Administration
Other Judicial Opinions A party who is adversely affected by this Final Order is entitled to judicial review, which shall be instituted by filing one copy of a notice of appeal with the Agency Clerk of AHCA, and a second copy, along with filing fee as prescribed by law, with the District Court of Appeal in the appellate district where the Agency maintains its headquarters or where a party resides. Review of proceedings shall be conducted in accordance with the Florida appellate rules. The Notice of Appeal must be filed within 30 days of rendition of the order to be reviewed. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I CERTIFY that a true and correct t copy < of this Final Order was served on the below-named persons by the method designated on this 27 Fi oF 50 . Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Telephone: (850) 412-3630 Jan Mills Finance & Accounting Facilities Intake Unit Revenue Management Unit (Electronic Mail) (Electronic Mail) Suzanne Suarez Hurley Office of the General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration (Electronic Mail) Thomas Caufman, Esq. Quintairos, Prieto, Wood & Boyer, P.A. 4905 West Laurel Street, Suite 200 Tampa, FL 33607 (U.S. Mail) J. D. Parrish, Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings Jill England, Administrator Emeritus Properties-NGH d/b/a The DeSoto Building Emeritus at Melbourne 1230 Apalachee Parkway 1765 West Hibiscus Blvd. Tallahassee, FL 32399-3060 Melbourne, FL 32901 (Electronic Mail) (U.S. Mail) 2
